I said in the previous post that in the last couple of days New York Times reviewers have expressed contempt for new books by Al Franken and Joe Conason. Yes, these books are unapologetic, angry, and harsh; the right has been dishing out harsh rhetoric -- unnoticed by the kinds of people who review books for the Times -- since at least the late 1980s, and Franken and Conason are responding in kind, but their Times reviewers don't understand that.
Well, here's another rhetorical stinkbomb from the right that these reviewers will ignore: Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror by Richard Miniter, a new book from Regnery. It's getting the full Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy sendoff -- a big story on Sunday at the Drudge Report, a Robert Novak column, multi-part serialization in The Washington Times -- and, perhaps, bulk buys from right-wing foundations. It's #11 at Amazon as I write this. It will probably be a New York Times bestseller.
But it's almost certain that the Times won't review it, and that no one who writes for the Times will ever read it, or even register its existence. And most other moderate-to-liberal publications, possibly taking their cue from the Times, will ignore it as well. So its themes will find their way into our political discourse utterly unimpeded and unchallenged. (Hell, the Times hasn't even bothered to challenge Ann Coulter's Treason -- her fellow conservatives have to do that job.)
And Times reviewers will go their merry way, believing that politics in this country is generally discussed at an adult level, and tut-tutting at writers such as Franken and Conason, who choose not to conceal their anger for reasons these Times reviewers will never understand.
UPDATE: Now Caspar Weinberger is putting the boot in, denouncing Clinton in The Washington Times as part of the publicity campaign for Miniter's book. The Times denounces Franken and Conason for advancing black-and-white arguments, with no gray areas. Well, I don't see a whole lot of gray in what Weinberger writes -- he's essentially agreeing with the far-right boilerplate argument that all Islamist terrorism everywhere and at all times is and will always be Clinton's fault.
Now that this argument has been taken up by a respected elder of the establishment, do you think maybe the mainstream press will notice that intemperate language and demonization shows up a tad more often on the right?